Telechat Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-08-14
Requested 2012-08-03
Authors Hemant Singh, Wes Beebee, Chris Donley, Barbara Stark
Draft last updated 2012-08-21
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Meral Shirazipour
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Matt Lepinski
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour
State Completed
Review review-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-09-genart-telechat-shirazipour-2012-08-21
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 12)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2012-08-21


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <> .

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-09
Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
Review Date: 2012-07-11
IETF LC End Date: 2012-07-11
IESG Telechat date: -

This draft is almost ready to be published as Informational RFC but I do have some comments.

Major issues:

Minor issues:
-[Page 20], Appendix A, the list only covers changes to existing text in RFC6204. It would help the reader if you could please add a paragraph on new additions, e.g. 6rd, etc.; even though this is mentioned in the Abstract.

-[Page 20], Appendix A, all changes refer precisely to a bullet ID (e.g. G-5, WAA7, etc.) which makes it easier to find the change in the document; except changes #1, 8, 10, 12, 13. It would bring great clarification if you could please add a precise reference in the text for these change items.

Nits/editorial comments:
-[Page 4], "NAT" is first used, please spell out.

-[Page 6], Section 3.2.1, last sentence: the ULA-5 and L-4 are not right below the text but appear one page later. Suggestion:
"..especially requirements ULA-5 and L-4 below."  --> "..especially requirements ULA-5 and L-4 described in Section 4".

-[Page 8] W-6,  [I-D.ietf-pcp-base] is now version v-26.[Page 17] gives reference to v-24.

-[Page 8] W-6, " enabled by default or mechanisms by which.." --> " enabled by default or using mechanisms by which.."

-[Page 9] WAA-4, IA_NA is first used, reference to [RFC3315] would be useful and consistent with the rest of the sentence. 

-[Page 11] WPD-8, [I-D.ietf-dhc-pd-exclude] is now RFC6603. [Page 17] gives reference to draft v-4.

-[Page 15], DLW-2, "Network Address Translation (NAT)": second time acronym is spelled out in the document. Can just use "NAT" instead.
note: "NAT" is first used and should be spelled out in Section 3.1.

-[Page 15], [MULTIHOMING-WITHOUT-NAT] reference format needs to be updated and point to draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat-0x

-[Page 20], item 8 has a typo, "if an service provider"---->"if a service provider"


Meral Shirazipour